asked the Secretary of State for Defence which of the British nuclear weapons systems would have to be eliminated if the zero option proposed by President Reagan were to be agreed.

None, Sir.

That is not a very encouraging reply, given that we are perhaps now poised on the verge of meaningful discussions between the United States and the Soviet Union. Will the Secretary of State give a commitment that Britain intends to encourage whatever signs there are of Europe moving towards establishing a nuclear-free zone, at least for medium-range weapons? If the Soviet Union is arguing that SS20s are being introduced as a replacement for out-of-date SS4s and SS5s, that surely makes sense of what is now being said by President Reagan, that not only will the United States eliminate its own weapons—

Order. The hon. Gentleman is putting an argument instead of asking a question.

The zero option requires the elimination of all land-based intermediate range nuclear missiles of the United States and the Soviet Union. We do not have any land-based intermediate range missiles. What the hon. Gentleman said about a European nuclear-free zone makes no sense, because SS20s can be moved to the other side of the Urals and still hit the targets at which they are now aimed. We need a multilaterally organised and verifiable global agreement, not one that is isolated to the European theatre.

Does the Secretary of State see any hope in this proposal, because the Fl1ls, Polaris, the American nuclear bases, and the Tornados would remain as they are? Secondly, the Secretary of State talks about multilateralism, and yet he believes that the bomb has maintained peace. Does he really believe in multilateral disarmament?

The hon. Gentleman will know that in nuclear capable aircraft—he mentioned some himself—the Soviets have a superiority over NATO of 6 to 1, and that in theatre nuclear missiles their superiority is 4 to 1. We want to negotiate an arrangement whereby the zero option proposal is a start, and the best way to progress—the hon. Gentleman may not believe me. but I am as passionately interested in progress as he is—is to narrow the area for discussion in the initial stage of negotiation. That is what the zero option proposal was intended to do. We can then broaden the area for discussion, if it is successful.

:asked the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to decide whether to order the air defence ground environment 15/85 radar system.

Offers are now being assessed, and the results of two competitions should be decided soon.

Is the Minister aware of the great importance of the decision being made soon? The Sea Wolf project, now being dealt with by Marconi. is much appreciated in my constituency, although the two Marconi plants are still at risk until the Sea Dart and other projects are decided. Will the Minister do his best to see that a decision is made soon and favourably?

I assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that the considerations that he mentions and which he so assiduously espouses are continually in our minds.

Is my hon. Friend aware that there is much gratitude on an all-party basis, both in the city of Leicester and in the county of Leicestershire, for his recent decision to help Marconi Radar? Will he bear in mind that it is important for the Government to buy British wherever possible?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. I confirm that our policy is to buy British wherever possible, as we are doing with 90 per cent. of the current equipment budget.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if the number of aircraft available for the defence of the United Kingdom is now markedly greater than it was three years ago.

Yes, Sir. The number of aircraft available for the defence of the United Kingdom is greater than in 1979, and the capability of those aircraft has been enhanced.

Is that not a disreputable answer, which hides the fact that many of the aircraft are extremely old? Does not the right hon. Gentleman's answer entirely disregard the fact that for much of this Government's period of office the number of operational flying hours by pilots in the relevant squadrons has been greatly reduced? How does that equate with the view so frequently stated by Conservative Members before 1979?

The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that it takes a good number of years to improve any defence capability. He should be aware that since coming to office we have proceeded with the Nimrod early-warning programme, we have agreed to run on the two Phantom squadrons into the 1990's and we are bringing forward the Tornado air defence version, which will be only a few months behind schedule. The VCIO tanker force will greatly multiply our air defence capability. We have agreed to arm 72 of the Hawks. We are redeploying Bloodhound, we are putting Blindfire on Rapier and we are hardening aircraft shelters.

Did or did not the Secretary of State refer to a "window of vulnerability" opening in our air defences during the next five years? Is that not the price of the Trident programme?

I referred to a "window of vulnerability" in general terms and referred to NATO's total capability compared to that of the Warsaw Pact. The superiority of Warsaw Pact forces in all areas will continue to increase in the next five years compared with NATO's forces. That is the window of vulnerability.

In addition to the list that my right hon. Friend has given, will he confirm that the Government's action on pay and conditions has stopped the outflow of trained pilots who fly those aircraft?

When we came to power we were short of about 200 fighter pilots. We are still short of fighter pilots. It takes two and a half years to recruit and train a fighter pilot. Therefore, the changes that we have made to pay and conditions will take time to materialise into more trained fighter pilots.

Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm the report in The Daily Telegraph of 28 January that our front line air defence system will be reduced by one-sixth by the end of the year? In the same interview as the right hon. Gentleman referred to the "window of vulnerability", did he not say that if there were an air attack on Britain we should immediately have to rely on American air defence forces, because we would lack our own? Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the delays and cancellations in our air defence programme will lead to a major crisis by 1984–85, thus shunting the burden of conventional weapons on to the next Government?

I have just given some of the enhancements that we have made to our air defence in the past three years. When we last debated defence, the Labour Party proposed a reduction of £3.5 billion a year in defence expenditure. I now learn that the right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin) will keep all five dockyards open. We must ask whether a Labour Government would have anything other than dockyards with which to defend the country.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will compensate Mrs. Galbraith for the Royal Navy's loss of her late brother's medallion.

Yes, Sir.

Although I welcome the Minister's statement—such as it is—I still do not know what it means. Does not this matter need further investigation? Surely the Minister must ask Commander England, the officer concerned, what happened to the medallion. Did it go into someone's private collection, or was it honestly lost? In such circumstances, what does the Royal Navy do? This is not a small matter, but a matter of principle—

Order. That is enough questions for the Minister to get on with.

If we knew what had happened to the medallion, I should not have to apologise for its loss, as I sincerely do. We have made inquiries of all the officers and all those who might know anything about it, but I am afraid that the medallion is lost.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the Sting Ray torpedo project.

The Sting Ray programme is running to the time scale and costs planned at the end of the project definition stage in 1978. It is due to enter service within the coming year.

By how much is the final cost likely to exceed £1, 000 million? Are any of our allies or any other countries interested in the project and prepared to buy it?

I am not prepared to speculate about the final outturn costs. As a member of the Public Accounts Committee, the hon. Gentleman will be aware of the forecasts that have been made. It is probably a little early in the product's development for many navies to be interested, but some preliminary inquiries have been made.

What progress has been made in discussions with the Americans about the next generation of NATO torpedoes with a British front end and a rear end made by the Americans?

We have had close and continuing negotiations and discussions with the United States of America. We had hoped that certain opportunities would exist to make more progress than has been made on the heavyweight and lightweight—Stingray—side. At present, all I can say is that the discussions continue.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is the present cost of the sovereign base areas in Cyprus; and which other Governments contribute towards expenditure in these bases.

The estimated cost of the British Forces in the sovereign base areas and associated sites is £72 million a year. The United States Government, who use the areas in connection with peacekeeping tasks, make a contribution.

How much do the United States of America pay for their contribution towards peacekeeping tasks? If the intiative taken by Prime Minister Papandreou and President Kyprianou to bring the British Government into closer talks towards a settlement is finally successful, and a settlement is on the cards, does my hon. Friend agree that the role of the two British bases would have to be reconsidered in that settlement?

The United States Government pay for all the facilities that they use at RAF Akrotiri in support of the U2 flights monitoring the Middle East peacekeeping arrangements. The other matters raised by the hon. Gentleman are a matter for my right hon. and noble Friend the Foreign Secretary. However, we have no intention of giving up our rights to the sovereign bases.

Is my hon. Friend aware that there is no hostility to the sovereign bases in either of the two communities in Cyprus and that the Cypriots are only too well aware that they provide jobs? Will my hon. Friend confirm that they have an important role in facilitating training for British Service men and have done an invaluable job in helping the United Nations peacekeeping force?

I am grateful for my hon. Friend's support. His latter point is quite right. We keep in close touch with the Republican Government on all of these matters, and I entirely endorse my hon. Friend's statement that the British presence in Cyprus is welcomed.

What part do the bases play in NATO's strategy? If they play no part, why not, and why are they there?

The hon. Gentleman knows full well that they play no part in NATO's strategy and are there to further British interests.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Turkish Government and the Turkish Cypriot community have made their position clear and that they fully understand that the value of those sovereign base areas lies not in the immediate future, but in the long-term defence of their interests in the eastern Mediterranean and the interests of us all?

I confirm what my hon. Friend has said so succinctly.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the role of carriers in the Fleet.

The primary wartime role of our carriers would be to conduct anti-submarine operations in the eastern Atlantic. In the next few years we intend to make particular use of our carriers in deployment outside the NATO area.

Given that reply, does my right hon. Friend agree that the commissioning of HMS "Illustrious" and HMS "Ark Royal" will make a significant contribution to the Fleet? More importantly, in view of the role played by HMS "Invincible" in NATO's autumnal exercises, does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be an act of folly, detrimental to the national interest, to dispose of HMS "Invincible" now?

To bring my hon. Friend up to date, our discussions with the Australians have envisaged a handover of "Invincible" towards the end of 1983, when "Illustrious" will be operational. We also intend to run on "Hermes" until "Ark Royal" joins the Fleet in 1985. We expect a decision from the Australians by the end of the month. If they prefer the later date of 1985, when "Ark Royal" is in service, we shall consider the matter. I would wish to debate with my hon. Friend the role of the carrier, but it would be more than you would allow, Mr. Speaker, in answer to a question.

Given SACLANT's critical shortage of carriers and the interdependence of anti-submarine warfare operations, on the surface as well as below with hunter-killer submarines, and in the air with maritime patrol aircraft, is the Secretary of State confident that, with the present complement of carriers—which he did not specify, but which cannot be more than three and perhaps is only two—Britain can discharge its NATO maritime obligations in the east Atlantic, or is this yet another price that Britain is paying for Trident?

It cannot be anything to do with Trident.

How many? Two or three?

We made it clear in the White Paper in June that we envisaged two carriers being in service. If we had retained a third carrier, she would have gone into reserve. It is better to try to obtain £175 million, which is the sum that will go into the naval programme if we sell "Invincible" to the Australians, than to have a carrier in reserve. Carriers make heavy demands on supporting antisubmarine and air defence escorts. We wish to cover as wide an area as possible in the east Atlantic with frigates with embarked organic air that can carry Stingray.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the original concept of the Invincible class anti-submarine warfare carriers was that there would be three—

Six.

and that two of those would be on station at any given time, with one in the dockyard? Will he further confirm that, if he goes ahead with the proposed sale of "Invincible" to the Royal Australian Navy, that will effectively halve the number of those valuable antisubmarine warfare vessels on station at any given time? Is he aware that many hon. Members are strongly opposed to his proposed action?

No, I cannot confirm that I envisaged three carriers being in service. It was clearly stated in the White Paper that two carriers would be in service. It is a question of how best we can dispose of our naval resources in the east Atlantic. The Royal Navy will be the third most powerful in the world after the two great Powers. We cannot afford to deploy the air defence and anti-submarine escorts that would be necessary to protect the carriers. Therefore, it is better to keep two in service rather than three and to spend the rest of the money on the frigate force.

Will the Secretary of State come clean? Is it not the fact, and was it not the point of his saying that he would wish to debate the matter with his hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Mr. Brotherton), that he no longer has any confidence in an ASW carrier role in the east Atlantic? That is the only way in which his policy now makes sense.

Opinions differ on this matter, but I have made it clear that I do not believe that any Government of either party would order ASW carriers today.

In view of the widespread concern about how Britain is to sustain its NATO role in antisubmarine operations in the east Atlantic, will my right hon. Friend take an early opportunity, outside the House if necessary, to explain his concept of anti-submarine warfare and how we are to meet our responsibilities in the light of the planned disposal of "Invincible" and the reduction in the frigate fleet and the hunter-killer submarine fleet?

My hon. Friend and many Opposition Members will be interested to know that today I am placing an order with Yarrow (Shipbuilders) Ltd. for the eighth Broadsword class frigate at a total estimated cost of about £120 million. That will enable us to take advantage of a reduced price offer expiring at the end of this month—

Sale of the century.

which will secure a saving, both for the seventh frigate that we ordered the other day and this one today, of about £6 million.

Does the Secretary of State accept that the pursuance of the Trident programme must mean a sacrifice of the surface fleet, which in the end will mean the sacrifice or the ultimate closure of yards such as Swan Hunter on Tyneside?

The Trident programme has cost us hardly anything up to now. The big expenditure on Trident, if we decide to go for Trident D5, will be in the late 1980s, when the Tornado programme is run down. The Tornado programme is costing £11.25 billion, which is far more than Trident will ever cost. Trident will cost us less in capital terms than any other major defence capability and far less in running terms. We shall spend £2 billion on torpedoes in the next two years. The hon. Gentleman has the relative scale and cost of Trident entirely out of gear.

the Secretary of State for Defence if he has been able to reach a conclusion on which contractors should receive the proposed radar installation work for the Sea Wolf contract.

As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence announced on 9 February, we have selected the Marconi 805 SW radar as the lightweight tracker for improved Sea Wolf. Marconi Radar is the prime contractor for the tracker and processor elements of the Sea Wolf ship system.

Moving into less controversial waters for the Government, may I thank my hon. Friend for the way in which that contract has been granted to Marconi, which is the best company in the world for such work? Can he tell us how the teaming of the joint working groups will be done, because that will be an interesting and novel feature of the contract?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces told the House on 15 February, British Aerospace and Marconi Radar have reached an agreement by which British Aerospace will take on certain specific development tasks on the 805 SW. The firms have said that it is intended that British Aerospace will become the prime contractor for future Sea Wolf developments. The two companies will co-operate to develop as a private venture the vertical launch systems. The Government warmly welcome this agreement.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will set out his Department's responsibilities for the defence aspects of the United Kingdom's space policy.

My Department is responsible for military space requirements, which are, wherever possible, formulated in co-operation with our NATO allies, and for assessing the military implications of developments in space technology. This covers a wide spectrum of activities, including in particular communications and navigation technology. My Department is represented on the inter-departmental committee on space, chaired by my hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and Information Technology.

While thanking my hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask whether he agrees that part of his defence policy has been to bring together British Aerospace and Marconi in the placing of the all-British defence satellite, worth about £55 million? Looking to the future, will he confirm that he hopes that it will have some beneficial and continuing effect in getting a share of NATO defence satellites?

My hon. Friend is right to draw the attention of the House once again to another example of co-operation between those two major British companies. He is also right to say that itwill enhance our prospects of further opportunities in NATO and elsewhere.

Does my hon. Friend agree that if we are to have a genuinely independent strategic deterrent system we shall require satellites for own own targeting? In view of the disputations and uncertainties at present surrounding the successor system, should he not take at least prelinlinary steps to set this in train?

I do not think that that arises directly out of the question about Ministry of Defence space involvement, but I shall be happy to debate it outside with my hon. Friend.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether the stationing of chemical weapons in Europe was discussed at the last meeting of NATO Defence Ministers.

There was no discussion of chemical weapons at the last meeting of NATO Defence Ministers.

Is the Secretary of State aware that many people do not believe his statements about chemical weapons? When will he come clean to the House and let people know exactly what is going on behind closed doors?

I will tell the hon. Gentleman what is going on behind closed doors. The Soviet Union—

Oh come on!

The Soviet Union now has 60, 000 troops trained in and specially designated to fight in chemical warfare. Training exercises are carried out on live chemical training grounds and we know that there have been fatal casualties among Soviet troops undertaking such training.

What are we doing?

The total stock of chemical weapons held by the Soviet Union is more than 300, 000 tonnes, much of it deployed forward into Europe, with the means of delivering it. That is what is happening behind closed doors.

Has any European member of NATO so far asked for chemical weapons to be stationed on its soil?

There is no proposal at present to deploy the new American binary weapons forward in Europe and the Americans have agreed to consult their European allies before any such forward deployment arises.

Do the Government make it clear on every occasion that the stationing of any weapons in the United Kingdom is a matter exclusively within the control and decision of the United Kingdom itself?

Of course it is. I am not sure what the right hon. Gentleman is trying to imply.

Will the Secretary of State stop prevaricating about chemical weapons? We all know that there is a Russian stockpile and that there will be an American stockpile, and I hope that negotiations will reduce them. Will the right hon. Gentleman make it clear today that the Government have no intention either to manufacture chemical weapons or to allow such weapons, whether British or American, to be located on British soil?

I have repeatedly made it clear that there is no proposal to deploy chemical weapons on British soil. We have taken the lead in trying to obtain a ban on the manufacture of chemical weapons, but, as the Soviet Union, unlike NATO, has a massive lead in chemical weapons deployed forward in Europe, and 60, 000 troops trained to use them, the Soviet Union refuses to agree the verification measures for a ban on such weapons. It is time that the House concentrated on the threat from Soviet chemical weapons rather than on criticising our American allies.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if any recent changes have been made in the deployment of United Kingdom forces on the Isle of Man.

No, Sir.

What is the nature of the agreement between the United Kingdom Government and the Manx Government that enables us to station 11 RAF personnel on that island and at the same time to recruit Manx residents into the United Kingdom forces?

I find nothing extraordinary in that simple arrangement. The British Government are responsible for the defence of the Isle of Man. The Manx Government pay 2.5 per cent. of their share of revenues from the Customs and Excise agreement towards the cost of their defence, which in 1980–81 was no less than £680, 000.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence how many complaints there have been about low-flying British military aircraft in the United Kingdom and West Germany for the most recent period for which figures are available; and how much compensation has been paid.

Out of 131, 841 sorties flown in 1981, there were 4, 505 complaints. Compensation for loss, injury or damage to the total value of £51, 436 was paid.

I thank the. Minister for his reply. Is he aware of the grave concern in many parts of the United Kingdom and West Germany about low-flying aircraft? Is it not possible to simulate the relief features of land over the sea so that exercises can be carried out over areas where individuals are not put at risk from low-flying aircraft?

I do not accept that the civilian population are at risk. The accident record has been extraordinarily good—no civilian has been killed for eight years. I assure the House that if it were possible to stimulate low flying elsewhere, the Government would investigate it as fully as possible. I acknowledge the dismay and discomfort that low flying causes, but we are defending this nation and I believe that people understand that this sacrifice must be borne.

Does my hon. Friend agree that an essential part of low flying is contour flying, which can be performed only over suitable terrain and is not necessarily possible over the sea or anywhere else?

My hon. Friend is a technical expert in these matters and I endorse what he says. Some low flying is carried out over the sea, but most of it must be over land.

Is my hon. Friend aware that in Leicestershire, where there is much low flying, people well understand the reasons for it, they strongly support the defence of the United Kingdom and hope that he will take every opportunity to explain why these exercises are essential?

I thank my hon. Friend. I hope that all hon. Members appreciate the immense trouble that my Department takes to investigate complaints, to answer them fully and to deal with this unpleasant matter as fairly as possible.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he is yet in a position to announce his decision on Trident; and whether he contemplates switching from Trident I to Trident II.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he is yet in a position to make a further statement on Trident.

The Government have not yet reached their final decisions on the United Kingdom Trident programme and I am, therefore, not yet in a position to make any statement.

I appreciate the need for this important decision to be taken after much deliberation. If the Government decide to go for the advanced D5 version of Trident, what trade-offs might be offered by the United States to offset the increased cost? Is he convinced that if we go for the D5 we shall be able to maintain our conventional forces at the necessary levels?

On the latter point, yes I am. On the former point, we are in the process of deciding between C4 and D5, which naturally requires discussions with the United States. I cannot comment at present on the first part of my hon. Friend's question.

Will the Secretary of State assure the House that when the decision is made there will be an immediate debate? As his right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is sitting beside him, perhaps we may have a view on that.

When we came to power the Labour Government were spending £2.9 billion on defence equipment. This year we are spending £5.5 billion. Everyone knows that the right hon. Gentleman's policy is to reduce defence expenditure. If we decide in favour of Trident and go for the larger missile, there will still be a substantial real increase in our expenditure on conventional forces, in accordance with the announcement that we have already made of a 3 per cent. increase in defence expenditure up to 1985–86. There will continue to be a real increase in defence spending on our conventional forces, which is not the policy of the right hon. Gentleman.

In deciding whether to go for the C4 or the D5 will my right hon. Friend take into account the American decision not to proceed on their own behalf with the C4, and the consequent dangers of being landed with an obsolete weapon for which we could get no spares supplies?

Yes, we shall be taking that into account, but it would not be true to say that the C 4 is obsolete. It is still in service and will remain in service into the 1990s.

Will the Secretary of State tell the House what the overriding strategic requirements are in taking a decision on Trident now?

Eight successive Governments of all political parties have believed in the need for a strategic independent deterrent. There is nothing new about this Government deciding to modernise that deterrent. The Labour Government decided to modernise the independent deterrent and did so secretly. We are doing so openly.

With regard to any negotiations for the sale of HMS "Invincible", will my right hon. Friend tell us whether the views of the Board of Admiralty have been taken into consideration and whether it agrees that HMS "Invincible" should be sold, in view of the need to keep up our conventional forces?

I always listen with enormous care to the views of the Board of Admiralty.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what are the effects of the reduction of the British fishing fleet upon Royal Naval reserve and support capabilities.

We have plans to take up a number of fishing vessels for minesweeping purposes and a variety of support roles in time of war. Despite the decline in the deep-sea fishing fleet I am confident that sufficient vessels are available to meet our needs.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the concern of people both in and outside the fishing industry about the future of the minesweeping operation because of the decline in the fishing industry? What steps is he taking to keep in training, those fishermen who are now not sailing the high seas because there is a reduced number of fishing vessels?

The fishing industry has not traditionally been a major source of volunteers for the RNR. We are keeping an eye on the number of available trawlers that would be needed in time of war. I repeat that there are still a satisfactory number available.

Is the Minister aware that as a result of the sale of trawlers from the United Kingdom the number of vessels available to the Navy will be greatly reduced? Can he further say whether we shall have any fishing fleet upon which the Royal Navy will be able to draw if his colleagues in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food do not obtain a satisfactory CAP?

As the hon. Gentleman well knows, that question is not for me. I assure him that, when military considerations are taken into account, we have enough trawlers available for our needs in time of war.

asked the Secretary of Defence if he is satisfied that the current petrol allocation is sufficient to ensure the efficient training of both Regular and Territorial Army units.

Yes, Sir. We attach a high priority to maintaining training standards. Current fuel allocations are sufficient for that purpose.

In view of the importance of petrol in modern training, because of the transportation involved, is my hon. Friend satisfied that those Regular units that are required to carry out additional duties as part of their NATO role are, nevertheless, left with sufficient petrol to perform their normal training? If not, will he look into the possibility of reducing the amount of fuel used to heat military buildings and thereby release those resources for use in training?

Constraints on fuel have only been in connection with training purposes. Therefore, I do not think that my hon. Friend need have any concern when emergencies arise. I shall refer his question about heating buildings to my hon. Friend who deals with the Property Services Agency.

Does it not strike my hon. Friend as somewhat anomalous that the one country in the Western world, among all the industrialised nations, that is self-sufficient in oil should be imposing such severe restrictions on the use of petrol by the three Armed Services? Does this not show that the policies are geared more to the budgetary niceties of cash limits than to any reference to the level of threat?

It is an interesting budgetary philosophy that, simply because we have a national resource, it should cost us little or nothing. The Ministry of Defence has to pay for fuel, as does any other customer.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he proposes to discuss with the Malaysian Government the possibility of the sale of British tanks to that country.

We have had discussions with the Malaysian Government on their requirements for armoured fighting vehicles and these discussions continue. We are fully prepared to help in their defence equipment programme.

I appreciate the necessity for discretion in discussing individual contracts, but if it were possible for contractual arrangements to be resumed in dealing with armoured fighting vehicles and tanks, would this not be a welcome relaxation of the informal ban imposed by the Malaysian Government?

I agree with my hon. Friend that that would be the case, but, as he knows, it is not our practice to disclose the details of contracts if it is the wish of the foreign Government that we should not do so.

asked the Prime Minister if she will lisst her official engagements for Tuesday 23 February.

This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further meetings later today. This evening I hope to have an audience of Her Majesty the Queen. Later I shall attend a dinner given by the Engineering Employers Federation.

In the light of the trail of destruction left in a Liverpool school over the last few days, will the Prime Minister tell the House whether she has yet had a chance to read the reports in The Guardian this morning and in The Times last Friday about the politically motivated Left-wing groups that are involved in the indoctrination of young people? Would the right hon. Lady care to comment on the £1/2 million reduction in the policing budget on Merseyside and to consider the possibility of reinstating that money and putting 1, 000 extra community police on the beat? Would she agree with me—[HON. MEMBERS: "Too long."]—that parents must exert greater responsibility in dealing with their children and in encouraging greater discipline among the children in this area?

We do not believe that there should be any reduction in the amount spent in these difficult days on the numbers of the police or the provision of equipment. We should fight strenuously against any reduction in the numbers of or expenditure on police services.

Will my right hon. Friend find time today to congratulate the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) on employing as a political agent someone who has had the good sense to buy his council house? Would my right hon. Friend agree that this is red-hot evidence that thousands of members of the Labour Party prefer the common sense, security and independence that borne ownerhip offers to mongrel political dogma.

It seems to me a good example of the old political adage that one should look at what they do and not at what they say.

rose—

Mr. Michael Foot

:rose—

:Give way.

Can I—[Interruption.]

Order. May I say we are only at the beginning of Prime Minister's Question Time. There is plenty of time yet.

It is not true what the hon. Gentleman says. I do not have an agent.

I am sure that my hon. Friend will be able to look after himself. The right hon. Lady says that people should be judged by what they do. The figure of over 3 million unemployed is published today for the last time before the forthcoming Budget. Will the right hon. Lady give the House and the country an assurance that the coming Budget, unlike all previous Budgets introduced by her Administration, will not add drastically to the unemployment total? Can she give a further assurance that she will take steps in the Budget to restore to the unemployed the benefits that have been cut by her Government?

The right hon. Gentleman will know that I can say virtually nothing about the Budget. I can, however, promise him that it is unlikely, in contrast to Budgets introduced by the Labour Government, to take us to the IMF.

If the right hon. Lady cannot, or will not, answer the question about the likely increase in unemployment as a result of the Budget, will she answer the question about the unemployed? Is she not aware that under her Government there has been a severe cut of something like £10 a week, particularly for the long-term unemployed? Is she not aware that the number of longterm unemployed has risen to about 1 million? These are appalling figures. Will she take steps in the Budget to help those whom she is making unemployed?

The right hon. Gentleman is correct in saying that those who have been unemployed for about a year number between 900, 000 and 1 million. That is, indeed, very serious. Any national insurance changes are usually announced in the Budget. The right hon. Gentleman must await them. He will have already seen an additional Supplementary Estimate, which is largely accounted for by the increasing number of unemployed applying for social security benefits.

Will my right hon. Friend find time today to urge her appropriate colleagues to study the Granada TV "World in Action" programme in which an IRA arms dealer indicated that Noraid had raised $5 million in the United States and that practically all this amount had been spent on weapons? Will she take urgent steps to ensure that our representatives in the United States make the American public fully aware of where this money is going?

We have tried to do just that. We shall continue our efforts. The President and the United States Government have been very forthright in pointing out that money given to Noraid finds its way towards helping terrorists in the IRA. They have condemned it.

Is the Prime Minister aware that I do not have an agent and that the person referred to on a previous occasion by one of her Ministers is no longer on the executive of the Bolsover constituency Labour Party?

Serves him right.

Is the right hon. Lady aware that he was not pushed out, but resigned?

The gentleman, whether or not he is the hon. Gentleman's agent, seems wise when dealing with housing matters. It is perhaps because he is wise that he is not the hon. Gentleman's agent.

The right hon. Lady ought to be ashamed of herself.

it is wise, so perhaps he will not do so.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 23 February.

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

During the course of her day will the Prime Minister try to explain to ordinary men and women across the length and breadth of the country how a Government who supposedly believe in equity can hand out massive State benefits to people who invest in Amersham International, while at the same time the unemployed and poorly paid are severely punished by the Government day after day and week after week? Can the right hon. Lady explain the disparity between giving State cash to certain well-off people and taking it away from the poor?

It is, of course, very easy to judge a price in retrospect. It is not so easy to judge it in prospect.

In view of the deteriorating situation in Poland and the state of siege in Gdansk, will my right hon. Friend initiate new European sanctions against those responsible in the Kremlin? Does she accept that West Germany, France and the Benelux countries, in agreeing to the Siberian gas pipelne deal, in effect, sold their souls to the devil?

Under the NATO umbrella, we have announced the measures that we have taken against the military Government in Poland and also a certain number of measures that are signals to the Soviet Union that we are well aware of the collusion between the Soviet Union and Poland over the imposition of military Government. With regard to the gas pipeline to West Germany and France from Siberia, I believe that this is a matter on which it would be better not to comment. I would point out to my hon. Friend that one contract has come to this country that is very valuable to a particular development area.

Is the Prime Minister aware that the Treasury is refusing to give information on the total cost of her tax handouts to the rich in the last three Budgets? Is the reason her acute embarrassment that the tax burden on the rich has gone down while that on everyone else has gone up? As this information is available in the Treasury and has nothing to do with this year's Budget, will she arrange for this concealment of information to be ended forthwith?

Tax reductions, by definition, go in greater proportion to those who pay the greater proportion. That is obvious. If people do not pay very much tax, they cannot get very much tax back by way of tax reductions. I would, however, point out to the hon. Gentleman that the top 40 per cent. of incomes start at about £7, 500 a year, an amount that would perhaps not enable those earning it to be classed as rich under his definition.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 23 February.

I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the enormous resentment felt by the public over the manner in which some rail staff appear to be taking them for a ride in more ways than one? Will she take time to discuss the matter with the Secretary of State for Transport and to impress upon him that no additional subsidies will be paid on top of the £2 million a day already paid at the expense of the taxpayer to finance British Rail unless the organisation adopts twentieth century productivity methods?

I believe that my hon. Friend is probably referring to the additional strikes after the ending of the ASLEF strike, which obviously caused great distress to a number of commuters who regularly rely on British Rail to provide a service. I sympathise with him, because many of his commuters must have been very adversely affected. I must point out that the vast majority of those employed by British Rail have agreed to flexible rostering and that other people really cannot base their services to the public on the methods adopted in 1919 if we are to have a modem railway system with a good future. The matter is now under negotiation with British Rail and, of course, we shall have to consider what happens when we know the results of that negotiation.